1. food and drink
2. food
3. condiments and dressings

Social Cognition, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2005, pp. 11-34
BERNSTEIN ET AL.OF FALSE FOOD MEMORIES
CONSEQUENCES
FALSE MEMORIES ABOUT FOOD
CAN LEAD TO FOOD AVOIDANCE
Daniel M. Bernstein
University of Washington
Cara Laney, Erin K. Morris, and Elizabeth F. Loftus
University of California, Irvine
In two experiments, we suggested to 336 participants that as children they had become ill after eating either hard–boiled eggs or dill pickles. Eighty–three additional
control participants in Experiment 1 received no suggestion. In both experiments,
participants’ confidence increased in line with the suggestion. In the second experiment, we used a pretest/posttest design and found that enhanced confidence
was accompanied by avoidance of the relevant food item. These results demonstrate that adults can be led to believe falsely that eating certain foods as children
made them sick and that such false beliefs can have consequences.
“Who . . . can cloy the hungry edge of appetite by bare imagination of
a feast”
(from The Tragedy of King Richard the Second, Act I, Scene III).
People often misremember their past. Misleading details can be
planted into a person’s memory for an event that actually occurred
(e.g., Loftus & Palmer, 1974; see Ayers & Reder, 1998, for review). It
also is possible to plant entirely false memories, or what we call “rich
false memories” (Loftus & Bernstein, 2005). In one of the first studies of
rich false memories, participants were led to believe that they had
been lost in a shopping mall for an extended period of time before being reunited with their parents (Loftus & Pickrell, 1995). In other work,
participants falsely remembered spilling a punch bowl at a wedding
This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health (Grant NRSA 1F32
MH64264–01). The University of California-Irvine also generously supported this research.
Address correspondence to Daniel M. Bernstein, Department of Psychology, University
of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195–1525. E-mail: [email protected].
11
12
BERNSTEIN ET AL.
or going to the hospital late at night for an ear infection (Hyman, Husband, & Billings, 1995). Although some have suggested that such procedures may elicit true memories (Goff & Roediger, 1998), others have
shown that the procedure works for highly unlikely events, such as
witnessing a demonic possession (Mazzoni, Loftus, & Kirsch, 2001),
undergoing an official medical procedure to have skin scraped from
one’s finger (Mazzoni & Memon, 2003), or riding in a specific hot air
balloon (Wade, Garry, Read, & Lindsay, 2002).
These studies demonstrate that it is possible to plant rich false
memories. One question that naturally arises from this work is
whether rich false memories have long–term effects. Do they affect
peoples’ attitudes and the behaviors that they might later intend to
perform? In her honors thesis conducted in our lab, Collins (2001) investigated whether a false suggestion can have subsequent consequences (reviewed in Pickrell, Bernstein, & Loftus, 2004). She asked
participants about their childhood experiences, including whether
they had been attacked by a small dog. Later, some of these participants were told falsely that the answers they had previously provided to these questions and others indicated that they had been
attacked by a small dog as a young child. When subsequently asked
about this key experience, these participants were more confident
that the event had occurred in their childhood than control participants who received no false feedback. More importantly, these “believers” reported that they were less likely than the control
participants to want to own a small dog as a pet. Although the sample size is small, this work provides some preliminary empirical support for the claim that falsely believing something about one’s
childhood can influence later attitudes.
To further pursue such effects, we developed a new procedure for
exploring the repercussions of a false belief. In the current research,
we falsely suggested to participants that, as children, they had become ill after eating certain foods. We then explored whether this
suggestion increased their confidence that the event had occurred
and whether they were inclined to avoid those foods.
EXPERIMENT 1
METHOD
Participants. The participants were 237 undergraduates at the University of Washington who received course credit for their time.
They were run in small groups.
CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE FOOD MEMORIES
13
Materials and Procedure. Participants came to a laboratory and were
told that they would complete a series of questionnaires. Participants
first completed an instrument called the Food Preferences Questionnaire that asked them to rate each of 62 different foods in terms of
how much they enjoy the food. Each food (e.g., watermelon, spinach,
fish) was rated using a 5-point scale (1 = hate it; 2 = dislike it; 3 = neutral; 4 = like it; 5 = love).
Participants completed a 10–min anagram filler task while the experimenter ostensibly fed the data into a computer for analysis. Participants then were given false feedback about their data. They were
told falsely that we had entered their responses into the computer
and generated a profile of their early childhood food experiences, referring back to age three or four. The seemingly individualized profiles told them that they had gotten sick eating a particular food. A
portion of the profile was identical for all: when they were 3 or 4
years–old, they disliked spinach and enjoyed fried foods and chocolate-covered almonds. These items were included to lend credibility
to the profile, in that we assumed that most people would have had
these experiences.
The critical item was embedded in the third position of the profile.
Approximately one–third of the participants (n = 77) were told that
they had gotten sick after eating hard–boiled eggs (Egg Feedback),
another third (n = 77) were told that they had become sick from eating dill pickles (Pickle Feedback), and the remainder (n = 83) received a three-item profile that mentioned spinach, fried foods, and
almonds but nothing about eggs or pickles (Controls). To ensure that
they processed the feedback, we told participants that the computer
had randomly selected two of the items for them to elaborate upon:
the first was the chocolate-covered almonds and the second was the
critical item (pickle or egg, respectively). During this phase, participants were asked to answer two questions about each item. For the
critical item, they were asked: “Try to imagine where you were when
you got sick from eating [dill pickles]. Were you: a) at home; b) on a
picnic; c) at a birthday party; or d) other ________” and “Imagine
what the [dill pickles] tasted like. Was the taste: a) bitter; b) salty; c)
sour; or d) other _______?” Participants in the control condition
imagined eating the almonds only and answered two questions
about this item.
The false feedback materials were collected and new materials
were distributed. To see if the false feedback influenced participants’
14
BERNSTEIN ET AL.
confidence that the critical event happened in their past, they completed a 24–item questionnaire that asked about childhood experiences involving various foods. The questionnaire was modeled after
the life–events inventory that has been used in other studies (Garry
et al., 1996); thus, we refer to it as a Food History Inventory (FHI). The
FHI asks about experiences that may have happened before age 10.
Participants respond on an 8–point scale, with a response of 1 indicating that the event definitely did not happen before the age of 10
and a response of 8 indicating that the event definitely did happen
before the age of 10. Embedded within this questionnaire were two
critical items: “Felt ill after eating a dill pickle” and “Got sick after
eating too many hard–boiled eggs,” which were in positions 9 and
16, respectively. The FHI is printed in the Appendix.
Finally, to see if the false feedback influenced subsequent behavior, participants completed a questionnaire involving an imaginary
party with various beverages and foods available (hereafter, the
“Party Behavior” questionnaire). They were told to “imagine that
you are at an afternoon barbecue party with 100 guests.” Then they
indicated their likelihood of consuming each of 37 options (e.g., peanut butter sandwiches, stuffed mushrooms, diet cola). These options
were presented in sections. For example, the first section read:
“Shortly after you arrive, you find a bucket full of bottled drinks.
How likely are you to pick each of the drink choices below?” Participants indicated the likelihood of selecting each of: (a) seven different
drinks (e.g., cola, tonic, water); (b) six different types of finger sandwiches (e.g., turkey, avocado); (c) eight different appetizers (potato
chips, carrots with ranch dip); (d) 10 different hamburger toppings
(e.g., mustard, tomatoes); and (e) six different ice cream flavors (e.g.,
strawberry, rocky road). They rated each item on an 8-point scale anchored by “definitely no” on the low end (1), “maybe” at mid–scale
(4 and 5), and “definitely yes” at the high end (8). The two critical
items, dill pickle spears and salted hard–boiled eggs, were in the
third section. This section read: “After a bit of a swim in the host’s
pool, you see another table with snacks. How likely are you to pick
each of the nibblers below?” The critical items were in the fourth and
eighth positions of this section. The reason for using such a large set
of filler items was to attempt to mask the obviousness of the critical
items. After this questionnaire, participants were debriefed and
thanked.
CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE FOOD MEMORIES
15
RESULTS
Did the false feedback about an adverse childhood food experience
(pickle or egg) affect participants’ responses? Consider first the three
bars on the left side of Figure 1. Participants who were told falsely
that they had gotten sick from eating dill pickles (Pickle Feedback)
were more confident that as a child they “felt ill after eating a dill
pickle” than those who were not given false feedback about eating
pickles. The mean rating for the Pickle Feedback group on the pickle
item on the FHI was 2.94, compared to 2.36 for the Egg Feedback
group, and 2.47 for Controls. To see whether the pickle feedback led
to more avoidance of the pickle item, consider the third set of bars in
Figure 1. Pickle Feedback participants indicated less desire to eat dill
pickle spears at an imaginary barbecue. Their mean rating was 3.42,
while the corresponding ratings for the Egg Feedback group and
Controls were both 3.82. Thus, numerically speaking, participants
showed increased confidence that they felt ill after eating a dill pickle
and had reduced interest in eating a pickle. But, as will become
evident, only the increased confidence was statistically significant.
In one inferential test, we compared the Pickle Feedback group’s
mean rating for the item assessing confidence that they had gotten ill
after eating a dill pickle to the mean rating on that item for the Egg
Feedback group and Control group combined. This resulted in a significant difference, t(233) = 1.95, p < .05, one–tailed (statistical tests
presented in this article are 2–tailed unless otherwise specified, as in
the present case). In a second inferential test, we compared the Egg
Feedback group’s mean rating for the item assessing confidence that
they had gotten ill after eating hard–boiled eggs to the mean rating
on that item for the Pickle Feedback group and Control group combined. This difference was not significant, t(234) < 1.0. Thus, the false
dill pickle feedback significantly increased participants’ confidence
that they had become ill after eating a dill pickle as children. The false
hard–boiled egg feedback had little effect on confidence.
Next, we tested whether the false pickle and egg feedback led to
avoidance of pickles and eggs, respectively, on the Party Behavior
questionnaire. To determine this, we compared the Pickle Feedback
group’s mean rating for the item assessing the likelihood of eating
pickles at the party to the mean rating for that item of the Egg Feedback group and Control group combined. Although the Pickle Feedback group indicated that they would be less likely to eat the pickle
Mean rating (1-8)
FIGURE 1. Mean False Memory (from Food History Inventory) and Food Avoidance (from Party Behavior questionnaire) ratings for
Experiment 1. Pickle – False Memory = mean confidence that participant felt ill after eating a dill pickle before the age of 10. Egg –
False Memory = mean confidence that participant got sick after eating too many hard-boiled eggs before the age of 10. Pickle – Food
Avoidance = mean rating that participant would choose to eat dill pickles at an imaginary barbecue. Egg – Food Avoidance = mean
rating that participant would choose to eat hard-boiled eggs at an imaginary barbecue. Note that higher scores on the two Food History items indicate greater confidence in the childhood memory. Higher scores on the two Party Behavior items indicate greater
willingness to eat the item. Error bars are Standard Error of the Mean.
16
BERNSTEIN ET AL.
CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE FOOD MEMORIES
17
item at the imaginary barbecue than did those who did not get false
pickle feedback, the difference was not significant, t(234) = 1.14, p >
.1. A similar analysis that compared avoidance of those who received
false egg feedback to those who did not also revealed no significant
difference. Put another way, those given the egg feedback were not
less likely to claim that they would eat hard–boiled eggs at a party,
t(233) < 1.0.
DISCUSSION
These results indicate that false feedback about becoming sick after
eating dill pickles can increase people’s beliefs that the experience
occurred. However, this false belief did not appear to lead people to
avoid dill pickles as adults. While the avoidance scores were lower
than the combined control scores, the reduction was not statistically
significant.
One problem with the current posttest design is that we cannot
know which participants did and which did not accept the false feedback. Our Party Behavior scores presumably include both those who
believed the feedback (believers) and those who rejected it (non–believers). It could be the case that the believers were showing avoidance and the non–believers were masking this effect. To remedy this
problem, we modified our paradigm and used a pretest/posttest design in Experiment 2. This permitted us to identify groups of believers and non–believers and to trace avoidance behavior separately for
the two groups. To accomplish this, we ran a two–session experiment in which participants received an FHI twice, once before and
once after receiving false feedback. This permitted us to identify
those individuals who showed increased confidence in the critical
childhood experience and to compare them to those who did not.
EXPERIMENT 2
METHOD
Participants. The participants were 180 undergraduates at the University of California, Irvine, who received course credit for their
time. They were run in small groups.
Materials and Procedure. On their arrival at the lab (at Time 1) participants completed the FHI, which was identical to the one used in
Experiment 1. To disguise the true nature of the experiment, partici-
18
BERNSTEIN ET AL.
pants also completed three filler questionnaires involving personality and eating habits.
One week later (at Time 2), participants returned and were given
false feedback about their earlier data. They were told falsely that we
had entered their responses into the computer and generated a profile of their early childhood experiences with certain foods. Again,
the profiles were presented as if they had been individually tailored
to the specific participant. A portion of the profile was identical for
all: as a young child, “you disliked spinach,” “you enjoyed fried
foods,” and “eating chocolate birthday cake made you happy.” The
critical item was embedded in the third position of the profile. Approximately half of the participants (n = 91) were told that they got
sick after eating a hard–boiled egg (Egg Feedback) and the remaining
participants (n = 89) were told that they got sick after eating a dill
pickle (Pickle Feedback). Unlike in Experiment 1, there was no pure
control group. Thus, for each participant, there was a critical manipulated item and a critical non–manipulated item (e.g., for the Egg
Feedback group, the critical manipulated item was a hard–boiled
egg and the critical non–manipulated item was a dill pickle). To ensure that participants processed the feedback, all participants answered questions about the chocolate cake item and their critical
item. For the critical item, they were asked: “To what extent do you
feel that this event is reflected in your personality today?” They responded by circling a number between l – not at all and 8 – very much.
The second question was: “How is your personality different because of this event? (For example, are you more timid? More
sociable? Happier?)” Blank lines provided space for an open–ended
response.
Next, participants completed the FHI again. This second set of responses was used to determine whether there were changes in their
confidence that the critical event had happened in their childhood. In
addition, they completed two questionnaires designed to explore
their avoidance of the critical foods. The Party Behavior questionnaire measured the likelihood of the participants consuming each of
37 options at an afternoon barbecue. It was identical to the one used
in Experiment 1.
As a dependent measure, we used a Food Preferences questionnaire that measured how much participants like eating various foods
in general. (A version of this questionnaire was used in Experiment
1, not as a dependent measure, but as a preliminary measure de-
CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE FOOD MEMORIES
19
signed to give credibility to the false feedback.) In Experiment 2, the
Food Preferences questionnaire presented 64 items and asked participants to rate each in terms of how much they enjoy it, using a scale of
1 – definitely don’t like to eat (for whatever reason) to 8 – definitely like to
eat. Two critical items, dill pickle spears and hard–boiled eggs, were
embedded in the list.
Finally, participants completed a questionnaire entitled “Memory
or Belief?” This questionnaire asked for a few more details about
their food history. It listed three food experiences (all from the FHI)
that might have occurred and asked subjects to indicate whether
they had a specific memory of the event from before age l0. The three
items included the relevant critical item plus two distracter items.
Participants wrote M to indicate they had a specific memory for the
event and gave “as many details as possible.” They wrote B if they
believed the event happened but had no specific memory of it, and
they explained why they believed the event happened. They wrote P
if they were positive that the event did not happened and explained
how they were so sure that the event did not happen.
RESULTS
False Food Memory. Did false feedback about the occurrence of a
food–related event affect confidence that the event happened in
childhood? The data showing mean changes in participants’ perceived likelihood that such events occurred are shown in Figure 2.
Consider the left side of the figure. Participants who were told
falsely that they had gotten sick from a dill pickle (Pickle Feedback)
showed that false feedback suggesting that they had gotten sick after
eating a dill pickle affected the perceived likelihood that the event
had occurred (pre–feedback M = 2.25, post–feedback M = 3.13). Participants who were told that they had gotten sick from a hard–boiled
egg (Egg Feedback) showed virtually no increase in their rating of
the likelihood that they had gotten sick after eating a pickle (Ms =
2.04 and 2.11). A similar pattern occurs on the right side of Figure 2.
The Egg Feedback group increased its rating of the egg item from
2.29 at Time 1 to 2.92 at Time 2, while the Pickle Feedback group’s rating increased minimally from 2.31 to 2.48.
Prior to conducting inferential tests, we calculated for each participant and for each of the two critical items the difference between responses on the FHI at Time 1 and Time 2. We then averaged these
differences for the two groups, to give us four separate means: Time 1
FIGURE 2. Ratings of pickle and egg items on Food History Inventory before (pre-) and after (post-) the pickle and egg false feedback in Experiment 2. Higher
scores on the Food History Inventory indicate greater confidence in the childhood memory. Error bars are Standard Error of the Mean.
20
BERNSTEIN ET AL.
FIGURE 3. Ratings of critical items on Food History Inventory before (pre-) and after (post-) the pickle and egg false feedback in Experiment 2, split according to whether participants “believed” the false feedback. Note: “Non-critical item” represents the mean of all participants in the other experimental group, i.e., for the left portion of the graph, the “non-critical item” refers to the mean of all Egg Feedback
group participants, regardless of whether they were Egg “believers.” Higher scores on the Food History Inventory indicate greater confidence in the childhood memory.
CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE FOOD MEMORIES
21
22
BERNSTEIN ET AL.
and Time 2 means for both the pickle and egg items. We subjected
these values to a 2 (Food Type: Pickle, Egg) × 2 (Target of Feedback:
Yes, No) ANOVA, which yielded a significant effect of Target of
Feedback, F(1,179) = 13.22, p < .001, and no other effects (Fs < 1.0). To
more easily appreciate this effect, we examined the effect of feedback
on the two items separately. The pickle feedback significantly increased the ratings of the pickle item, t(88) = 3.76, p < .001, but it did
not increase the ratings of the egg item, t(88) < 1.0. Conversely, the
egg feedback significantly increased the egg item ratings, t(90) = 2.92,
p < .01, but did not increase the ratings of the pickle item, t(90) < 1.0.
Among those who “believed” the feedback, how much did their
confidence change? First we needed to decide what criteria to use to
classify someone as a “believer” in the feedback. We could have chosen to use a liberal or conservative criterion. If we had used a liberal
criterion, we might arbitrarily define believers as those who became
more confident that they had gotten sick. By this criterion, we would
classify 35 Pickle Feedback participants (39%) as believers. These
participants’ confidence increased 2.94 points, on average. Also, we
would classify 33 Egg Feedback participants (36%) as believers. On
average, these participants’ confidence increased 2.76 points. One
problem with this liberal definition is that some of these supposed
believers later told us that they were positive the event did not happen. Thus, we chose to define believers more conservatively, specifically as those who became more confident that they had gotten sick
and also later reported that they either remembered or believed the
event on the Memory–Belief Questionnaire. In other words, we eliminated participants who later said that the event did not happen. By
this more conservative definition, the 22 Pickle believers (25%)
showed an average increase of 3.18 points in their ratings and the 28
Egg believers (31%) showed an average increase of 3.0 points in their
ratings. These large increases can be seen in Figure 3, where they are
contrasted to the lack of an increase among the non–believers.
Food Avoidance. Next, we asked whether the false feedback led participants to avoid pickles and eggs. One answer can be found in the
analysis of the Party Behavior questionnaire, which included one
critical item assessing pickle avoidance (dill pickle spears) and one
critical item assessing egg avoidance (salted hard–boiled eggs). The
mean ratings for the pickle avoidance item were numerically lower
for those who had received pickle feedback than for those who had
not (3.16 versus 3.45). In addition, the mean ratings for the egg avoid-
CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE FOOD MEMORIES
23
ance item were lower for participants who had received egg feedback than for those who had not (3.84 versus 4.26). We conducted a 2
× 2 ANOVA on these data. There was a main effect of the food type
(greater inclination to eat eggs than pickles), F(1, 177) = 11.45, p < .001.
There was no main effect of the target of feedback, F < 1. There was,
however a trend toward an interaction, F (1, 177) = 2.67, p < .06,
one–tailed. The interaction trend can be understood in this way:
when given pickle feedback, participants strongly prefer egg over
pickle, as shown by a within-subjects t–test, t(87) = 3.5, p < .001; however, when given egg feedback, participants no longer prefer egg
over pickle, t(90) = 1.25, p = .21.
One problem with the above analysis is that believers and the
non–believers who outnumber them are lumped together. The believers could have shown strong avoidance that is masked by lumping them with their more numerous non–believing counterparts. So,
we reanalyzed the Party Behavior items, comparing three groups of
participants: those who believed in the feedback, those who did not
believe it, and those who were never exposed to it (i.e., those participants in the opposite feedback group). These data are shown in Table
1. Notice that believers gave lower ratings to the critical items. For
the pickle item, the only significant difference was between the believers and the non–exposed, t(111) = 1.98, p < .05, one–tailed. For the
egg item, the only marginally significant difference was between the
believers and the non–exposed, t(114) = 1.57, p < .06, one–tailed.
Thus, the false food feedback affected people’s intention to eat the
critical, manipulated food, but only if they believed the feedback.
Ripple Effects? The Party Behavior questionnaire contained
non–critical items that were related to pickles and eggs. These items
were pickle slices (offered as a hamburger topping) and egg salad
(offered as a finger sandwich choice). Would believing false feedback also lead to a ripple effect—to avoidance of these closely related
“ripple” items? These data too are shown in Table 1. As with critical
items, believers gave lower ratings to the ripple items. For pickle
slices, believers were marginally significantly different from the
non–exposed, t(111)= 1.88, p < .07. For egg salad, believers were significantly different from the non–exposed, t(115) = 2.29, p < .05. Thus,
the false food feedback sometimes affected people’s intention to eat
related foods.
One issue that arises is whether believers were more prone to food
avoidance in general or whether they only avoided the foods men-
24
BERNSTEIN ET AL.
TABLE 1. Mean ratings of items on the Party Behavior Questionnaire (on scales of 1–8)
for critical and ripple items, split by whether participants believed the relevant
feedback, did not believe it, or were not exposed to it in Experiment 2.
Type of Participant
Food Item
Believers
Non–believers
Non–exposed
Dill pickle spears
2.36
3.46
3.45
Salted hard–boiled egg
3.43
4.02
4.26
Pickle slices
3.50
4.85
4.78
Egg salad (finger sandwich)
3.43
4.49
4.64
3.18
4.21
4.28
Critical items
Ripple items
Mean across all items
tioned in the false feedback. Would egg-believers be less likely to
want to eat potato chips or stuffed mushrooms, as well as salted
hard–boiled eggs? To explore this question, we examined Party Behavior for all of the filler items. We found that believers did not avoid
the filler foods more than non–believers. The mean intention to eat
the filler items was 4.89 for the 22 Pickle believers (versus 4.87 for the
67 non–believers). The mean intention to eat the filler items was 5.12
for the 28 Egg believers (versus 4.87 for the 63 non–believers). Thus, it
was not the case that the believers avoided all foods.
Recall that participants also filled out a questionnaire regarding
their general food preferences. In the interest of space, these data will
not be presented. Suffice to say they showed very similar results, and
thus would be duplicative.
Memory or Belief?. Finally, we asked whether believers remembered getting sick from the critical item or if they just believed that
the event happened. Of the 22 Pickle believers, four (18%) remembered the event and 18 (82%) just believed that it had happened. Of
the 28 Egg believers, 5 (18%) remembered the event and 23 (82%) just
believed that it had happened.
Recall that after indicating a Belief, participants were asked to “explain why you think the event happened,” and after indicating a
Memory, they were asked to “give as many details as possible about
the memory.” To give a flavor of what some participants said, we
provide a few verbatim examples:
CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE FOOD MEMORIES
25
1. Sample Belief Response: “I did not like to eat boiled eggs for
years. It has to be something.” This person moved on the FHI from 1
to 6 on the egg item.
2. Sample Memory Response: “One Easter, my Mom, brother, and I
boiled eggs to dye later. My Mom said to take only the ones we were
going to use. Of course, we boiled too many, got bored of dyeing
eggs, and my mom forced us to eat the remaining (~3 each) to teach
us a lesson, ‘Don’t waste food.’” This person moved on the FHI from
1 to 6 on the egg item.
3. Sample Memory Response: “I had a cheese quesadilla with lots
of pickles. I got sick afterwards and I through (sic) up the food, and
all I tasted and smelled [after throwing up] was the pickles.” This
person moved on the FHI from 1 to 8 on the pickle item.
These examples show that the final reports can often be quite detailed. Although we cannot verify that these events never happened,
these individuals initially strongly denied the experience and later
embraced it. We address the issue of authenticity in the general
discussion.
A CASE HISTORY OF A BELIEVER
To put a human face on what a “believer” looks like in this study, we
present the example of a 20-year-old female (whom we call Sue) who
received false pickle feedback. Recall that to ensure that participants
processed the false feedback, we required them to answer questions
about the extent to which the getting–sick event was reflected in their
personality and how their personality might be different today because of this event. While many wrote very little (e.g., “more sociable” or “more stubborn”), some were more elaborate and their
elaborations may be a clue as to how the false feedback might work.
Sue was one such participant. Responding to the false feedback questions, she wrote, “It might have made me a little like a worry wart
about things, especially the foods I eat. I’m a little more careful.” She
moved from a 3 to a 5 on the FHI. In terms of Party Behavior, she gave
“dill pickle spears” a rating of “2.” On the Memory–Belief questionnaire, she gave the key item a “B” response, writing: “It is very likely
that this did happen. I remember this roller-skating rink we used to
go to & they would sell really big pickles. Sometimes my mom would
[buy] them for us and I could have gone to skate and felt sick.” As this
26
BERNSTEIN ET AL.
example illustrates, individuals will sometimes recruit a fair amount
of presumably autobiographical detail to embellish their beliefs.
DISCUSSION
Experiment 2 demonstrates that it is possible to convince a substantial minority of people that, as children, they had gotten sick either
after eating hard–boiled eggs or after eating a dill pickle. More importantly, this false autobiographical belief was associated with intent to avoid such foods in adulthood. The participants who believed
in the false feedback not only showed avoidance of the critical food
item (e.g., salted hard–boiled eggs), but also showed avoidance of a
closely related item (e.g., egg salad). We also showed that among
those who believed the false feedback, the large majority claimed
that they believed the event occurred but did not indicate that they
had a concrete recollection of it. A number of individuals provided
rather detailed and specific recollections of events that they had
previously denied experiencing.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
To reiterate our major findings, we suggested to participants that
they became ill as children after eating too many hard–boiled eggs or
after eating a dill pickle, and the suggestion increased their confidence that this had happened. The post–test design of Experiment 1
provided only suggestive evidence that this increased confidence
was accompanied by a decrease in participants’ willingness to eat
those foods now. However, the pre–test/post–test design of Experiment 2 furnished more direct evidence that a false suggestion of a
negative childhood food experience can lead to avoidance of that
food in adulthood. This design also permitted us to pinpoint individuals who accepted the false feedback. It was these participants who
were most likely to avoid the critical food items on the Party Behavior questionnaire. The participants who believed in the false feedback not only showed avoidance of the critical food item (e.g., dill
pickle spears), but also showed avoidance of a closely related item
(e.g., pickle slices).
Why does the false feedback manipulation increase confidence
that the event occurred? And, when it is successful, why does it leading to avoidance of the critical food? We believe that both being pro-
CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE FOOD MEMORIES
27
vided with the false feedback and being encouraged to
process/think about it may be critical to our results. The false feedback was presented as coming from a sophisticated computer analysis of the participant’s personal data, lending an air of authority and
enhancing its plausibility. After being told that the analysis was
probably true, the participant was encouraged to think about the getting–sick experience. Perhaps this instruction encouraged some participants to imagine how the event might have happened or how it
might be affecting them as an adult.
Recent work has shown that imagination can have powerful effects
on a variety of behaviors. The entire manipulation may have served
to increase the familiarity of the critical event, so that when queried
later about whether they “got sick after eating too many hard–boiled
eggs” before age 10, the item seemed more familiar to the participants. The participant may have mistakenly attributed that familiarity to childhood experience rather than to the recent manipulation
(Bernstein, Godfrey, Davison, & Loftus, 2004; Bernstein, Whittlesea,
& Loftus, 2002). Some individuals simply have assumed that the
event happened; after all, a seemingly authoritative source had suggested it. They may try to recruit related experiences to bolster this
belief, such as: “I did not like to eat boiled eggs for years. It has to be
something.” Other individuals actually may begin to imagine the experience or even recruit some memory details that may have happened to someone else. The imagination may imbue the belief with
sensory detail, producing a rather detailed report, such as: “I got sick
from eating ‘a cheese quesadilla with lots of pickles.’ ”
As we mentioned earlier, we cannot prove the falseness of the reports we received. One could certainly argue that the manipulation
triggered a true belief rather than planting a false one. Even if participants initially denied the experience, we have no way of knowing
that it did not occur. Moreover, while we think it is rather unlikely
that such a large percentage of participants would have gotten sick as
children on the two particular items that we arbitrarily chose to use
in this research, we cannot prove that it did not happen. One additional finding that seems inconsistent with the idea that we triggered
true memories and brought them into the participants’ consciousness is that, at the end of the study, most of our believers indicated
that they had just a belief that the event happened rather than a
full–fledged sensory recollection. In any event, if one does not want
to refer to these as false memories, they are certainly recently
28
BERNSTEIN ET AL.
“flipped” memories. That is, the individuals initially denied the
experience and later embraced it.
RELATION TO FOOD AVERSION AND SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Food aversion studies indicate that even a single bad experience with
a food can cause animals to avoid that food (Garcia & Koelling, 1966;
Garcia, Kimeldorf, & Koelling, 1955). Moreover, research shows that
rats can learn to avoid food, even when they are not directly sickened
by it (Holland, 1981). Our research adds to this latter finding by
showing that humans can be trained to avoid food by merely receiving the false suggestion of sickness.
Our findings also relate to work in social psychology, most notably
that on attitude–behavior consistency (Fazio & Zanna, 1978), persuasion (Zimbardo, Weisenberg, Firestone, & Levy, 1965), cognitive dissonance (Brehm, 1959), and the sleeper effect (Kelman & Hovland,
1953). Fazio and colleagues have shown that the more accessible and
available attitudes are in memory, and the more confident one is
about those attitudes, the more consistency there is between attitudes and behavior (Fazio & Zanna, 1978; Fazio, Powell, & Williams,
1989).
In work involving persuasion and cognitive dissonance, Brehm
(1959) and Zimbardo and colleagues (1965) have shown that people
can be induced to eat certain foods that they otherwise would not eat
(e.g., vegetables or fried grasshoppers). In these studies, participants’ attitudes toward various foods were assessed at one point.
Some time later, participants were asked to eat an offending food. To
increase cognitive dissonance, Brehm told some participants (eighth
graders) that a letter would be sent to their parents explaining that
the children had eaten a vegetable (e.g., broccoli, Brussels sprouts) at
school. This letter was intended to scare the children into believing
that they would, consequently, have to eat more of the vegetable at
home. In Zimbardo et al’s study, the experimenter was either unpleasant (high dissonance) or pleasant. In both experiments, participants increased their liking of the food more in the high dissonance
condition. Thus, participants do not like the food at the outset, yet
they end up eating the food to receive a reward (e.g., money or movie
tickets). When they dislike the experimenter or are worried that their
parents will find out that they ate this food, they find it difficult to
CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE FOOD MEMORIES
29
justify the fact that they have eaten the undesired food (cognitive dissonance). They move to reduce this dissonance by increasing their
liking of the food. In other words, they change their attitudes toward
the undesirable behavior. As Brehm notes, “the greater is the discrepancy between attitude and behavior, the greater will be the subsequent pressure to change the attitude” (p. 382). In the present
work, rather than increasing participants’ liking of certain foods (as
was done in the Brehm and Zimbardo et al. studies), we managed to
decrease their liking of the foods. Future work might explore the role
of cognitive dissonance in false memory and food avoidance, as well
as the persistence of attitude change after participants leave the
study (although see Greenwald, 1975, for limitations of cognitive
dissonance as a theoretical construct).
Finally, our work may relate to the sleeper effect, where participants are told to discount information they learned previously because it has come from an unreliable source (e.g., Pratkanis,
Greenwald, Leippe, & Baumgardner, 1988). In such work, people
tend to forget the source, but remember the content of the information. Thus, over time, they come to believe in the truth of the information. The present methodology of suggesting to participants
that they became ill after eating certain foods in the past may be a
type of sleeper effect; however, it is unlikely that participants have
forgotten the source of the false feedback by the time they complete the FHI a second time and the consequence measures. The
sleeper effect would explain why, over time, the suggested information might come to be believed. By this account, participants
forget the source of the information but remember the content—that they became ill. Future work might investigate whether
the sleeper effect would explain how people form enduring false
memories. More broadly, source dissociation techniques, such as
that used to study the sleeper effect, provide a valuable approach
to studying memory distortion (Betz, Skowronski, & Ostrom,
1996).
LIMITATIONS
We acknowledge a limitation of the current study. Specifically, it
is possible that some of our results reflect demand characteristics.
We administered the dependent measures soon after providing
false feedback to participants. Perhaps some participants realized
30
BERNSTEIN ET AL.
the relationship between the feedback (e.g., “you became ill after
eating a dill pickle”) and the subsequent Party Behavior questionnaire (e.g., “how likely are you to eat... dill pickle spears...?”). We
took several precautions to try to minimize demand characteristics in the present studies. We embedded the critical false feedback
item in a list of other distracter items in the feedback profile. We
also asked participants to think about the critical item and one
other distracter item in the feedback profile to prevent the critical
item from standing out. We embedded the critical food items in a
long list of other items on the FHI. In Experiment 2, we gave numerous instruments that concerned “personality” to try to persuade the participants that the study was about personality rather
than about false food memories. Finally, during the debriefing, we
asked participants what they thought the study was about. Virtually no one gave an answer that indicated any realization of the
research hypotheses.
Despite these caveats, there are other ways that the study could be
done to minimize the possibility of demand characteristics. One way
would be to disguise the initial questionnaires and subsequent feedback profiles as separate studies. This has been done successfully in
other research that revealed strong effects of false feedback on confidence in implausible childhood experiences (Loftus & Mazzoni,
1998; Mazzoni & Loftus, 1998). Another way to minimize the demand characteristics would be to increase the time interval between
the false feedback and the subsequent tests for its influence. For example, participants could receive the false feedback and then return
several days or weeks later to complete the remaining questionnaires. In other studies where the interval is longer, strong effects of
suggestive techniques have been observed (Manning, 2000,
summarized in Loftus, 2001).
CONCLUSION
In sum, people can be led to believe falsely that they had negative
childhood experiences with certain foods. Moreover, this false belief
leads to avoidance of the foods in adulthood. Future work might explore the generalizability of these findings to other foods, perhaps
even junk foods. If people who receive a suggestion that they got sick
eating chocolate cake later avoid cake, such a finding could have tremendous dieting implications. It also would be desirable to show
CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE FOOD MEMORIES
31
that when confronted with the actual foods (instead of an imaginary
barbecue), people truly would avoid eating these foods. We are optimistic that these findings would be observed in a study using actual
foods because a primary determinant of a person’s behavior is the intention the person has to perform that behavior (Cappella, Yzer, &
Fishbein, 2003).
A look at the real world provides numerous instances where
false beliefs can affect what people think and do. People who were
led to believe that they were molested in satanic cults by their parents have later filed charges or lawsuits against the parents (Loftus & Ketcham, 1994). A particularly tragic illustration of how
changing beliefs or memories can influence what people think or
do later in life is provided by the behavior of the Heaven’s Gate
cult, a group whose members were led to believe that they were in
telepathic contact with aliens (Bensley, 2003). Apparently, the cult
members had taken out an insurance policy to insure themselves
against being abducted, impregnated, or killed by aliens. The
group paid $l,000 a year for this coverage. Clearly their (presumably false) beliefs had significant economic consequences (Siepel,
1997). Thirty–nine members of the cult participated in the ultimate
act of consequence: they partook in a mass suicide in 1997, killing
themselves under the belief that to do so would free their souls.
We, of course, planted more benign beliefs-–that one got sick eating a particular food. We have shown that some people will later
avoid those foods.
So, as Shakespeare knew well, imagining a feast would not be
likely to cloy the hungry edge of appetite. However, our results
suggest that imagining getting sick on the feast might do the trick.
32
BERNSTEIN ET AL.
APPENDIX: FOOD HISTORY INVENTORY (FHI)
Below is a list of events that may or may not have happened to you before you were 10 years old. Please read each event and rate on an
8–point scale how certain you are that the event (or a very similar
event) did or did not happen to you by circling one of the numbers to
the right of the item. Circle the “1" only if you are completely confident
that the event did not happen to you before you were 10 years old.
Circle the ”8" if you are completely confident that the event did happen
to you before you were 10 years old. And, if you are not completely
confident, choose one of the middle numbers.
1. Ate two scoops of ice cream on a cone
2. Sold chocolate bars for a school
fundraiser
3. Broke a piñata at a birthday party
4. Felt uncomfortably full after eating
Thanksgiving dinner
5. Ate too much ice cream
6. Helped someone peel potatoes
7. Baked a birthday cake
8. Ate dinner at a very fancy restaurant
9. Felt ill after eating a dill pickle
10. Spilled a bowl of punch at a wedding
11. Slipped on a banana peel and fell
down
12. Made kool–aid by yourself
13. Bought school lunch
14. Ate a hotdog with onions and sauerkraut
15. Ate a candy apple at a state fair
16. Got sick after eating too many
hard–boiled eggs
17. Had a cheese pizza delivered
18. Ate freshly picked vegetables
19. Baked a pie with your mother
20. Were forced to go on a diet
21. Ate a caramel apple at a fair
22. Felt sick after eating airline food
23. Had a corn dog at a baseball game
24. Ate breakfast in bed with your parents
Definitely
did not
happen
1
2
3
4
5
Definitely
did
happen
6
7
8
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE FOOD MEMORIES
33
REFERENCES
Ayers, M. S., & Reder, L. M. (1998). A theoretical review of the misinformation effect:
Predictions from an activation–based memory model. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 5, 1–21.
Bensley, D. A. (2003). Can minds leave bodies? A cognitive science perspective. Skeptical Inquirer, 27, 34–39.
Bernstein, D.M., Godfrey, R., Davison, A., & Loftus, E.F. (2004). Conditions affecting
the revelation effect for autobiographical memory. Memory & Cognition.
Manuscript in press.
Bernstein, D. M., Whittlesea, B.W.A., & Loftus, E. F. (2002). Increasing confidence in
remote autobiographical memory and general knowledge: Extensions of the
revelation effect. Memory & Cognition, 30, 432–438.
Betz, A. L., Skowronski, J. J., & Ostrom, T. M. (1996). Shared realities: Social influence
and stimulus memory. Social Cognition, 14, 113–140.
Brehm, J. W. (1959). Increasing cognitive dissonance by a fait accompli. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 58, 379–382.
Cappella, J. N., Yzer, M., & Fishbein, M. (2003). Using beliefs about positive and negative consequences as the basis for designing message interventions for lowering risky behavior. In D. Romer (Ed.), Reducing adolescent risk (pp. 210–219).
Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications.
Collins, H. R. (2001). Another reason to dislike Chihuahuas and other small dogs: Behavioral
consequences of false memories. Unpublished honors thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.
Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1978). On the predictive validity of attitudes: The roles of
direct experience and confidence. Journal of Personality, 46, 228–243.
Fazio, R. H., Powell, M. C., & Williams, C. J. (1989). The role of attitude accessibility in
the attitude–to–behavior process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 280–288.
Garcia, J., Kimeldorf, D. J., & Koelling, R. A. (1955). Conditioned aversion to saccharin
resulting from exposure to gamma radiation. Science, 122, 157–158.
Garcia, J. & Koelling, R.A. (1966). Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychonomic Science, 4, 123–124.
Garry, M., Manning, C., Loftus, E. F., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Imagination inflation:
Imagining a childhood event inflates confidence that it occurred. Psychonomic
Bulletin and Review, 3, 208-214.
Goff, L.M., & Roediger, H.L (1998). Imagination inflation for action events: Repeated
imaginings lead to illusory recollections. Memory & Cognition, 26, 20–33.
Greenwald, A.G. (1975). On the inconclusiveness of crucial cognitive tests of dissonance versus self–perception theories. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
11, 490–499.
Holland, P.C. (1981). Acquisition of representation–mediated conditioned food aversions. Learning and Motivation, 12, 1–18.
Hyman, I. E., Jr., Husband, T. H., & Billings, F. J. (1995). False memories of childhood
experiences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 181–197.
Kelman, H.C., & Hovland, C.I. (1953). “Reinstatement” of the communicator in delayed measurement of opinion change. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology,
48, 327–335.
34
BERNSTEIN ET AL.
Loftus, E.F. (2001). Imagination and its memory–making power. The Psychologist, 14,
584–587.
Loftus, E.F., & Bernstein, D.M. (2005). Rich false memories: The royal road to success.
In A. Healy (Ed.), Experimental Cognitive Psychology and its Applications (pp.
101–113). Washington DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Loftus, E. F., & Ketcham, K. (1994). The Myth of Repressed Memory. NY: St. Martin’s
Press.
Loftus, E.F. & Mazzoni, G.A.L. (1998). Using imagination and personalized suggestion to change people. Behavior Therapy, 29, 691–706.
Loftus, E. F. & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 13, 585–589.
Loftus, E. F., & Pickrell, J. E. (1995). The formation of false memories. Psychiatric Annals, 25, 720–725.
Manning, C. G. (2000). Imagination inflation with posttest delays: How long will it last?
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.
Mazzoni, G.A.L., & Loftus, E.F (1998). Dream interpretation can change beliefs about
the past. Psychotherapy, 35, 177–187.
Mazzoni, G.A.L., Loftus, E.F., & Kirsch, I. (2001). Changing beliefs about implausible
autobiographical events: A little plausibility goes a long way. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 51–59.
Mazzoni, G., & Memon, A. (2003). Imagination can create false autobiographical
memories. Psychological Science, 14, 186–188.
Pickrell, J. E., Bernstein, D. M., & Loftus, E. F. (2004). The misinformation effect. In R.
F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking,
judgment and memory (pp. 345-361). HOVE, UK & NY: Psychology Press.
Pratkanis, A. R., Greewald, A. G., Leippe, M. R. & Baumgardner, M. H. (1988). In
search of reliable persuasion effects: III. The sleeper effect is dead: Long live the
sleeper effect. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54, 203–218.
Siepel, T. (1997, Mar 31). Leader’s health tied to deaths. San Jose Mercury News.
http://www.sacred–texts.com/ufo/39dead16.htm, accessed June 24, 2003.
Wade, K. A., Garry, M., Read, J. D., & Lindsay, D. S. (2002). A picture is worth a thousand lies: Using false photographs to create false childhood memories.
Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 597–603.
Zimbardo, P. G., Weisenberg, M., Firestone, I., & Levy, B. (1965).Commincator effectiveness in producing public conformity and private attitude change. Journal of
Personality, 33, 233–255.